Fury win but those early rounds I was thinking these are gonna go down as Wilders on the scorecards and that's exactly what happened. We see this in boxing all the time but the guy whose either at home or the draw always gets close rounds even if you think you can't make a case. I was quite frustrated at Fury as he could have out some of those rounds out of doubt and I expected the robbery at the end. You shouldn't have to do more than just won the most rounds but we've all watched boxing enough to know this aint the way it works these days.
what is the point of boxing if a knock down loses you the fight. what is the point of getting up if being knocked down loses you the fight.
You could have wrote a 10 page dossier as an argument rather than "he didnt win because wilder knocked him down twice" and it wouldnt have been any more convincing. It was clear a win as any, it didnt even need scoring it was just obvious from watching who was the winner.
Whats the point in not taking steroids when someone can take them, and get hailed a hero with an "incredible comeback/rocky story". Or whats the point in knocking someone down if they'e given 20 seconds to recover by the ref.
The story of the fight is something that Kellerman says. It's better not repeated. What is it that makes you think that other people are swayed by the story but you remain objective? Have you considered the possibility that those people have actually looked at the fight and made an assessment on that evidence alone?
Cracking thread hahaha. Reminds me of the old joke, ‘if there’s two things i’m really bad at, it’s maths’.